15 Pacific Climate Warriors and Local Narratives on Climate …
291
Worliczek (2013, 2014) studied climate change and its understandings among the
local communities in Rangiroa (French Polynesia) and Wallis (Wallis and Futuna),
both French territories; lastly, Kempf (2012) analyzed climate-induced migration
and the role of Christianity in Oceania.
Before answering these questions and investigating the Pacific Climate Warriors’
rhetoric about environmental issues, different discourses, which consider climate
change as both a scientific and a social object, will be briefly analyzed.
Climate Change: One Set of Facts, Multiple Values
Climate change was first conceptualized by the IPCC in 1990 and 1992 (IPCC 1992).
The Panel stated in its report that starting from the Industrial Revolution, the growing
emission of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has led to a warming of the global
climate. As observed by Latour and Woolgar (1979), the publication of a scientific
paper—the IPCC First Assessment Report in this case—allows laboratory results to
be accepted as objective facts. Hence, the publication of this report marked the birth
of climate change as the familiar scientific object we know today. It is assumed to
be true by the lay public because of the social and academic prestige attributed to
it by the scientists who have authority on the matter, and its reinforcement by the
media. As shown by Rudiak-Gould (2013), much of its credibility is the result of
the invisibility of the phenomenon itself: only the scientists can reveal the reality of
the changing Earth system and, as specialists of the matter, they can determine the
degree of urgency it carries. Latour and Woolgar stress that “to say that [hypothesis]
is constructed is not to deny its solidity as a fact. Rather, it is to emphasize how,
where, and why it was created” (1979, p. 127).
Yet, the results published by the IPCC are based on Global Climate Models
(GCMs)—scientific reproductions that can simulate climate trends during decades
by using statistical models which have limitations and involve uncertainties. Such
models approximate the climate system and are based on an imperfect understanding
of complex interactions between the components of the earth-system (the sun, the
atmosphere, the ocean, etc.). They are used by scientists to understand how human
activities may alter the global climate and its associated natural and social processes.
Even if GCMs are “central tools in areas of global climate science” (Lahsen 2005,
p. 897) they nonetheless entail some critical points. An objective assessment of these
models is very hard to obtain, especially because scientists often lack reliable and
consistent global data against which to check them. Indeed, this is the reason why
GCMs could be criticized for their reliability.
In addition to this, the socially constructed origin of climate change (Hulme 2009)
suggests considering it more as a ‘discourse’ and not as the truth, as an ongoing issue
and not as something given. The particular way we perceive and react to the scientific
debate that highlights the dangers caused by climate change depends on the degree
of trust we have in scientists and science, as well as on the cultural context with
which we ascribe meaning and value to such a phenomenon (Roncoli et al. 2009).
291
Worliczek (2013, 2014) studied climate change and its understandings among the
local communities in Rangiroa (French Polynesia) and Wallis (Wallis and Futuna),
both French territories; lastly, Kempf (2012) analyzed climate-induced migration
and the role of Christianity in Oceania.
Before answering these questions and investigating the Pacific Climate Warriors’
rhetoric about environmental issues, different discourses, which consider climate
change as both a scientific and a social object, will be briefly analyzed.
Climate Change: One Set of Facts, Multiple Values
Climate change was first conceptualized by the IPCC in 1990 and 1992 (IPCC 1992).
The Panel stated in its report that starting from the Industrial Revolution, the growing
emission of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has led to a warming of the global
climate. As observed by Latour and Woolgar (1979), the publication of a scientific
paper—the IPCC First Assessment Report in this case—allows laboratory results to
be accepted as objective facts. Hence, the publication of this report marked the birth
of climate change as the familiar scientific object we know today. It is assumed to
be true by the lay public because of the social and academic prestige attributed to
it by the scientists who have authority on the matter, and its reinforcement by the
media. As shown by Rudiak-Gould (2013), much of its credibility is the result of
the invisibility of the phenomenon itself: only the scientists can reveal the reality of
the changing Earth system and, as specialists of the matter, they can determine the
degree of urgency it carries. Latour and Woolgar stress that “to say that [hypothesis]
is constructed is not to deny its solidity as a fact. Rather, it is to emphasize how,
where, and why it was created” (1979, p. 127).
Yet, the results published by the IPCC are based on Global Climate Models
(GCMs)—scientific reproductions that can simulate climate trends during decades
by using statistical models which have limitations and involve uncertainties. Such
models approximate the climate system and are based on an imperfect understanding
of complex interactions between the components of the earth-system (the sun, the
atmosphere, the ocean, etc.). They are used by scientists to understand how human
activities may alter the global climate and its associated natural and social processes.
Even if GCMs are “central tools in areas of global climate science” (Lahsen 2005,
p. 897) they nonetheless entail some critical points. An objective assessment of these
models is very hard to obtain, especially because scientists often lack reliable and
consistent global data against which to check them. Indeed, this is the reason why
GCMs could be criticized for their reliability.
In addition to this, the socially constructed origin of climate change (Hulme 2009)
suggests considering it more as a ‘discourse’ and not as the truth, as an ongoing issue
and not as something given. The particular way we perceive and react to the scientific
debate that highlights the dangers caused by climate change depends on the degree
of trust we have in scientists and science, as well as on the cultural context with
which we ascribe meaning and value to such a phenomenon (Roncoli et al. 2009).